Grinols et al v. Electoral College et al

Filing 103

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/26/2013 DENYING 93 Motion for Reconsideration. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES GRINOLS, et. al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.

No. 12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD

ORDER

ELECTORAL COLLEGE, et. al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On March 12, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a “60B Motion For Reconsideration of the

17
18

Denial Of Motion For Default Judgment For Defendant Barack Obama.” (ECF. No. 93.)

19

Such a motion is governed not only by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 but also by

20

Eastern District of California Local Rule 230 (“Rule 230”).

21

E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(j).

22

Rule 60(b) empowers the Court to relieve a party from an order for the following

23

reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

24

evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the

25

judgment is void; (5) judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; and (6) any

26

other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

27

///

28

///
1

1
2
3
4
5

Rule 230(j) states:
Whenever any motion has been granted or denied…and a
subsequent motion for reconsideration is made upon the
same or any alleged different set of facts, counsel shall
present to the Judge. . . to whom such subsequent motion is
made an affidavit or brief . . . setting forth the material facts
and circumstances . . . including:

6

(1) when and to what Judge or Magistrate Judge the prior
motion was made;

7

(2) what ruling, decision, or order was made thereon;

8

(3) what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed
to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such
prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion;
and

9
10
11

(4) why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the
time of the prior motion.

12

Plaintiffs allege that to have newly discovered evidence that will justify

13

reconsideration of this court’s previous ruling denying default judgment (ECF No. 92)

14

under Rule 60(b)(2). Unfortunately, this so-called new evidence is not new. Plaintiffs

15

once again simply allege that President Obama is “refuses to accept service of process

16

at his residence.” This is the same argument that has been rejected by this and other

17

courts and one that Plaintiffs apparently enjoy re-hashing for some unknown reason.

18
19
20
21
22
23

In addition, plaintiffs are attempting to bring in the facts from an entirely different
United States District Court case that has no precedential authority on this court.
Neither of the reasons set forth above come close to justifying a motion for
reconsideration. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 26, 2013

24
25
26

___________________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2